exporectomy

No matter how many new languages we invent, this problem of surprise sub-languages being parsed from strings never goes away. It's almost as if program code should be somehow impossible to confuse with user-visible text. Maybe there's no good solution though :(

I suspect a 2nd factor is competitive vs well-defined. CEO for example is people-oriented but 70% male. Maybe because it's also competitive.

Though it does seem obvious, it's pretty dangerous to go looking for patterns in the data. More scientific to define the criteria before knowing the results so you can have a hypothesis to test, not just an observation to make.

From TFA: "the people vs things dimension is a continuous scale, but in our analyses we only used categories that are predominantly one or the other. All things-oriented jobs have a clear technical component, ranging from locomotive engine driver to astronomer and all people-oriented jobs have a clear component of providing help to individuals."

It also identified "face to face interactions" as a requirement for being people-oriented. So dating app developer is clearly not included.

Is that really why eugenics is demonized? That the human race (not any living individuals) is giving up its freedom to some sort of fallible authority?

I guess, like censorship, people only object to an arbitrary subset of it. People love censorship of "really bad" ideas just as they love eugenics of "really bad" genes.

Most people seem happy with asserting our authority of gene selection over animals though :P Conservationism is that. Not to mention actual selective breeding and killing of course. Perhaps we rightly believe humans truly are capable of being benevolent arbiters of who gets to reproduce and who doesn't in animals.

Excuse me. It was this "a society allowing people to suffer from treatable illnesses is completely unnecessary and cruel considering that providing free care to everyone is something many countries do successfully"

I'm saying no country provides free healthcare for all treatable illnesses. And not providing it is necessary because the cost would be too great.

I agree it's cruel though.

Its distributedness is still worth something even if only a small number of people control most of it. If they go rogue or get stopped by the government, others can take over. That's quite unlike any centralized system.

Do you have a real concern with eugenics or is it just because your culture demonizes it?

We already have little bits of eugenics baked into law and culture. Why not a little bit more? It doesn't have to involve death camps.

Seems like he wasn't a "lowly country rector" since he had a masters degree from Cambridge, was a member of the Royal Society and had many other scientific accomplishments. The rectorship was apparently just a perk that came with being a successful scientist.

I wish bloggers wouldn't try to create a false impression of things like that. It's disinformation - intended to mislead the reader.

Sure, there's balance. The idea that it was working fine so why change it leads to gigantic bloated software that nobody can really understand.

As an anecdote. I developed a product in a field where the main players were extremely well established with codebases dating back to punch card days. Their software could do everything you might imagine wanting it to do. But it was also so complex, you had to take a training course to learn it. But what's interesting is there were customers of those competitors who also bought my product because it was quicker and easier to get common things done. All that power actually let to a worse product in some ways.

> The amazing thing is 'which' was working perfectly fine for everyone.

'everyone' = existing users. New users are generally harmed by redundancy and mess.

It's becoming like USB version names. If you're familiar with them from working with them all regularly, you can just remember what name means what. But for newcomers, it's a massive struggle. I feel that naming things in general imposes a lot of cognitive burden on people. Chrome version numbers are beautiful. Just incrementing integers, the way we numbered things as kids.

I wonder if the naming mess is intentional for marketing or an accident of not predicting the future well enough? They certainly seem to be trying to keep it simple and it's nowhere near the impossible muddle of, say, Intel and AMD CPUs or Nvidia GPUs yet.

You mean gold?

Really? Can you point to any hype from the last, say, 5 years that even hints at thinly spread mining or ownership? Individuals were mining on their PC in its first couple of years, but that ended long ago.

I guess you're also not OK with all of society bearing the cost of the 10% or whatever that doesn't work hard enough to get a job and stay off social welfare?

Disadvantaged people aren't some romantic struggling hard workers, they have all sorts of vices and emotional/mental health problems leading them voluntarily to those behaviors. Smokers aren't just selfish pleasure-seeking lazys.

That's false. America has probably the most advanced healthcare in the world. Almost every new treatment is invented and made available there. Other countries don't provide that cutting edge stuff for free, they simply don't provide it at all. I live in New Zealand which has free healthcare but we sometimes hear about people pressuring the government to pay for some expensive new drug, or a dying person using crowdfunding to pay for what the government won't, or complaining they have to spend their own money flying to America for private treatment because no doctor in New Zealand is capable of that special thing. But those are the exceptions that get into the news. Mostly people just die when it's too expensive. Our standard for "treatable illnesses" is lower than the reality of what technology can do.

At the extreme end of diminishing returns, I'd guess that most deaths of elderly people in hospital are preventable because machines to perform the function of failed heart, lungs, kidneys, GI tract, etc. exist. But it's expensive, and countries with socialized healthcare don't pay for it for everyone because they don't have infinite money. My dad died this way when his lungs filled with fluid while in hospital.

People are so prissy about the unicode representation of their name while forgetting that even that is a machine-only representation made to approximate the technical limitations of printing presses and is different from anything they can write by hand or speak with their mouth. If you want the bank to use your "real" name, for most people, it needs to be spoken or possibly hand written. And it had better be in the correct accent or writing style too. In other words, storm in a teacup.

They might have jumped the gun since new passports can't have accents but older ones might.

Isn't a livable homeless camp a shanty town? Is that really something to aim for as the long term solution? Personally, I like the freedom it gives residents but it also gives them health and safety problems and people are generally awful at protecting themselves from that.

You're only thinking of it from the point of view of the dissatisfied person. Put yourself in the shoes of the person "messing with your night rest" without demonizing them. But why do you already have laws and bylaws for that sort of thing if you want to punish people for offenses that explicitly fall below the level of what the law disallows?

My concern is the kind of problem that happens in abusive workplaces, school bullying, abusive relationships, etc. Without rules, the powerful people slowly edge the victims out by always finding something they're doing "wrong". The victim may even believe it and keep trying to please but eventually be expelled anyway.

> You seem to suggest that in a free commune one individual's freedom to make noise would outweigh others' expectations of calm, or the opposite.

Try to find a realistic interpretation of what I said instead of something so transparently ridiculous. In other words, argue in good faith. There's no point engaging with someone if you try to misunderstand them.

Is production of things really a major GHG emission source? It might seem wasteful but things are cheaper now than before so it can make economic sense for them to have shorter lives which gives other benefits. Only having durable products would also be crippling to poor people, more of whom would never be able to afford them at all. Your old fridge owner was an aristocrat afterall!

> (as it's my experience that the collective decision-making IQ of politicians is well below the 100 mark, thus we cannot expect to see smart solutions arising from them).

This is something I tend to think too. Any popular idea must be stupid because it has to be understandable to a majority of people, which includes low IQ ones. I wouldn't blame politicians though - they're just a reflection of what the population wants. It's their job to placate people, no matter how stupid or wrong those people are, otherwise they'll get fired.

Not only can you not define the buzzwords you used, but you doubled down and used another ill-defined buzzword that you also won't know the meaning of.

You're a human being capable of far deeper thought than that. Why would you willfully cripple yourself so much? OK, that was a rhetorical question - you're intellectually crippling yourself to show allegiance to your tribe, membership in which satisfies some of your otherwise unmet emotional needs.

Mostly vomiting stops on its own and people don't die. Even when someone dies, it won't break the beliefs of survivors because they don't believe it works 100% of the time anyway. In your case, you even took an ineffective dose of Emetrol but still believed in its effectiveness despite that! How many ineffective doses would it take for you to not credit Emertol with stopping the vomiting?

If there's a scientific study, that might show something better than the giant fail-fest of cultural medical knowledge. I don't know of any human society that hasn't at least historically had a bunch of ineffective medicine that was widely used. Even modern western society probably has some - such as this Emetrol perhaps or wrong results of drug trials. An extreme case is China where normal doctors in hospitals routinely prescribe herbal remedies alongside conventional medicine.

Sure. But at least with criminal justice, there is an effort to make it predictable and consistent so you know when you're breaking the law or not - ideally of course. On the other hand, arbitrary rules that are made up on the fly to get rid of marginalized people is a hallmark of repressive governments as well as common bullying. It entrenches the power of the politically powerful.

> racism or other bigotry in admission. Almost never around eviction.

Could that be because the victims of eviction are individuals without the political power of a whole race and its supporters behind them? Obviously evictees are not happy being evicted or they would have left voluntarily.

> For some reason, the commune context especially terrifies people.

My guess is it's the lack of personal freedom and and lack of accountability for those who can control your life. Slavery sounds scary too even if it involved the same practical lifestyle as conventional work. Prison sounds scary, yet many people spend all day just sitting at home doing nothing more than they would do in prison anyway. The feeling of freedom is often more important than actually exercising that freedom.

> real anti-social bullies that mess up their neighbors or neighborhood.

That can mean "marginalized for some non-criminal reason". Sounds disgusting.

If the system itself is the unit of survival, then individual members' rights aren't so important. That's the communism way. They certainly need to be selective in allowing membership or it'll degrade into a bunch of freeloaders.

Yes, whatever the duration, you'll eventually stop vomiting some time after taking the medicine. Sometimes by chance it will seem like a remarkably short time from medicine to cure compared to the duration of the sickness. This is how a lot of ineffective traditional medicines "work". For a cold or nausea, nearly everyone will experience their problem fixing itself after taking the medicine and combined with cultural beliefs, use that to convince themselves that the medicine treated the disease. Just look at the number of people online who credit some (real) medicine with some outcome despite the fact that they have no way of knowing causation. Or young people who say "I don't drink FooBar type of alcohol because it makes me vomit." after one occasion getting plastered and ending up vomiting. It's good old mind-tricks of correlation vs causation.

There's a reason real medicine requires preregistered double blind trials. It's just far too easy to get causation wrong without using rigorous scientific methods.

Even though the damage is potentially reversible? If you have such a hair trigger for suicide, have you considered it might be caused by mental illness?